The client was pulled in Lake County after a police officer observed him weaving and then cut off the officer’s patrol car. During the stop the officer realized that the Client had a prior DUI arrest and began a DUI investigation. The client performed the field sobriety exercises and later refused to submit to a breath test. After reviewing the video and identifying some mistakes and conflicting evidence the Assistant State Attorney assigned to the case agreed the DUI case was not suitable for prosecution and the State abandoned the DUI charge.
According to police, the Defendant entered into a store and stole some merchandise. He was observed by store security who stopped him as he tried to leave the store with the stolen merchandise. The attorney for the firm investigated the case, and was able to get the Defendant into a program for first time offenders. Upon completion of the program, the attorney for the firm was able to get the prosecutor to drop the case completely.
On 02/ 20/ 2017 at 0050 hours, Tampa Police Officer observed a cream 2015 Toyota Highlander SUV to be driving SB on Armenia Av S, approaching the red light at Swann Av W. As it was driving, it had on the left turn signal ( it passed several streets but did not turn) and drifted over the broken lane divider line on it' s right. It then pulled up to the red light, turned off it' s turn signal and stopped with all 4 tires beyond the stop bar, running the red light and blocking the crosswalk. When the traffic light turned green, the Officer activated his emergency overhead lights and conducted a traffic stop. The traffic stop location occurred at Swann Av W / Moody Av S.
Upon initial contact with the defendant, the Officer requested his driver license, insurance and vehicle registration. He was not the registered owner of the vehicle; he said it was a " company car". While handing over his insurance and registration, he also handed an " operating instructions manual". The Officer then explained why he stopped him and asked him if he had anything to drink tonight before driving. He answered " No,sir. I live right down the street." While speaking to him, the Officer observed red/ glassy/ bloodshot eyes, a blank/ dazed stare, slurred/ mumbled speech, he moved lethargically, had fumbling fingers, he was disoriented ( he thought that he had been pulled over on MacDill Ave S) and a distinct odor of an alcoholic beverage stemming from inside the vehicle. When asked if the Officer could check his eyes, the Defendant agreed . The Officer then asked him to step out of his vehicle The Defendant expressed that he was very nervous ( said that his heart was racing) and that he 'doesn' t mean to cause any trouble'. While checking the Defendant's eyes, his body swayed and the Officer again confirmed the distinct odor of an alcoholic beverage to be stemming directly from the Defendant's breath. The defendant stated that he has not been diagnosed with diabetes, high blood pressure, any mental illnesses, or epilepsy and does not suffer from strokes or seizures. He is not currently sick or injured and is notseeing a doctor or physician for anything. He did not have any medications or any illegal drug use. When asked again about any alcohol consumption, he stated "Ya... I' m not.. Uh, no, I' m not going to do a DUI checkpoint". When told that this was not a "DUI Checkpoint" he stated "Ya, it's like I'm being arrested for like a DUI or something". The Officer then explained that he had concerns that the Defendant was impaired and then asked if he would submit to additional FSE's, The Defendant stated "Why do you feel that way? No, I'm not willing to do them. I' m confused. Confused in the way that..." The Officer then explained that he suspected the Defendant of possibly being physically impaired and that is why he is being asked to do FSEs. The officer also explained that failing to do FSE's could result in consequences. First, any refusal can be used against him in a court of law and secondly, the Officer would be forced to make a decision on whether or not to arrest him for DUI based only on what is known up until this point, including his driving patterns, any indicators observed while making
personal contact and the HGN exercise. After asking him again, the Defendant
said "No, I don't."
Based on the totality of all the circumstances, the defendant was placed under arrest for DUI. The Defendant stated that he was unsure whether or not he wanted to provide that sample. Ultimately, the Defendant refused to provide a breath sample.
Result: The state dropped the DUI charge.
On October 11, 2017, the Defendant was observed traveling on Howard avenue when she was observed by Tampa Police officer to be traveling over 50 mph in a 40 mph zone. The Defendant then turned onto southbound I-275 and accelerated to 70 mph in a 55 mph zone. The Defendant also drifted side to side within her lane. The officer initiated a stop of the Defendant and noticed a distinct odor of an alcoholic beverage on her breath. The Defendant's eyes were bloodshot and glassy. The Defendant agreed to perform field sobriety exercises and was arrested after exhibiting clues of impairment. The Defendant refused to submit to a breath test.
Result: After the firm submitted a request to review the evidence with the State, the State dropped the DUI charge.
On December 3, 2017, a Hillsborough County Deputy observed the Defendant passed out and slumped over in the driver's seat of a white Chevy van. The van was stopped in the roadway, on the wrong side of the road. The engine was running with keys in the ignition. The Deputy woke the Defendant and observed him to have a very strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath. The Defendant also had watery, bloodshot eyes. There was an open bottle of rum located between the two front seats. The Defendant admitted to drinking rum with his cousin but denied driving. The Defendant submitted to field sobriety exercises and exhibited several clues of impairment. The Defendant was arrested for DUI and refused to provide a breath sample.
Result: The case was set for trial and prior to the start of trial, the State dropped the DUI charge.
Our client was charged with Driving Without a valid Driver License after being stopped and the officer learning that our client had never obtained a driver license. This was our client's first criminal charge. Ticket Clinic lawyers took on the case and entered into negotiations with the State Attorney's office. In the end, the State agreed to drop the criminal charge, keeping the client's criminal record clean.
Our client was on vacation and hit a car in a hotel parking lot and then drove away. The accident was witnessed by hotel staff. Our client was charged with a criminal violation. After taking over the case, Ticket Clinic lawyers aggressively began negotiating with the State Attorney's office. In the end, the State agreed to drop the criminal charge.
Our client rear ended another vehicle that was stopped at a red light. Our client then fled the scene. The police found our client with his car broken down a few blocks away. Our client admitted everything. After being retained to work on the case, Ticket Clinic lawyers began investigating the case, reviewing the State's discovery and negotiating with the State. Finally, the State agreed to drop the criminal charge.
Our client was arrested by the Longwood Police Department in Seminole County on 3 counts of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, a second degree felony. Our client was alleged to have hit three people over the head with a shovel during a domestic disturbance. Our client's initial offer was 3 years in prison in order to avoid a potential maximum sentence of 45 years in prison. Our attorney scheduled depositions of the officers, witnesses, and alleged victims involved. After the depositions, the State made a reduced offer to our client of 3 years of probation instead of prison time. Our client rejected the offer and a second round of depositions was done. After the second round of depositions, the State offered our client a reduced first degree misdemeanor charge of simple battery and a year of probation. After consulting with our attorney, the client again rejected the State's offer. Finally, today the State agreed to drop all felony charges against our client. No felony conviction, no misdemeanor conviction, no probation, not even a fine.
The Client was stopped for speeding, and upon making contact with her, a deputy believed that she may be impaired by alcohol. The Deputy requested she perform field sobriety exercises, which she did, but allegedly performed poorly on. Subsequently she was arrested and taken to the Breath Alcohol Testing facility where she gave a breath sample almost three times the legal limit. The Firm investigated the case and discovered that the video, which was supposed to capture the Client's allegedly poor sobriety exercises, was obstructed by the fact that the Deputy had such a dirty windshield. As a result only a faint outline of the Client simply standing still could be seen. In addition, the Deputy took almost two hours two get her to the Breath Alcohol Testing facility. The Firm argued that this caused her to breath sample reading to increase to the level that was given. Overall the Firm argued that a poor investigation, combined with the inefficiency with which law enforcement processed the Client, gave cause for the DUI to be dismissed. The State agreed and dismissed the DUI.
The Client was discovered sitting in her vehicle on the side of the interstate. Upon discovering the Client the Officer believed she was impaired and did a DUI investigation. The DUI investigation revealed that the Client had difficulty performing the sobriety exercises. The Client was arrested and gave a breath sample almost twice the legal limit. The Firm investigated the case and discovered that the Client was extremely cooperative with law enforcement, had no prior criminal history, and there could be an argument that the stop or detention of her vehicle was improper. Based upon these factors the State agreed to dismiss the DUI charge.
The defendant was charged with DUI. He was stopped for weaving in and out of his lane. Once stopped the officer noticed signs of impairment and stated that the Defendant did not perform well on the fieldside sobriety exercises. It took the officer over two hours to get the driver to a breathalyzer machine where once he blew the reading was over the legal limit. The firm filed motions to suppress the DUI investigation as well as the breath result as it took too long to be reliable. The State agreed to drop the DUI charges.
